ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Quantitative perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals to inform the co-design of an mHealth application for knee osteoarthritis management.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and limited access to physiotherapy presents major barriers to evidence-based management. Mobile health (mHealth) applications can help address these challenges by supporting self-management, rehabilitation, and patient education. However, most existing applications lack robust evidence and demonstrate low adherence. Co-design approaches involving both patients and healthcare professionals may improve usability, engagement, and clinical integration. This study quantitatively examined user perspectives to inform the subsequent co-design and development of an mHealth application for KOA management; the application itself was not developed or evaluated in this study.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in Slovenia using a structured questionnaire, developed from previous studies and piloted with experts, to assess functional preferences, aesthetic preferences, perceived barriers, and perceived benefits of an mHealth application. Responses were rated on 5- or 10-point Likert scales and analysed using descriptive statistics and independent-sample t-tests.
resultsA total of 164 patients with symptomatic KOA and 136 healthcare professionals completed the survey. Both groups identified exercise videos, goal setting and progress tracking, written communication with a physiotherapist, and educational content as essential app components, with no significant differences in functional preferences (p > 0.05). However, patients placed greater importance on aesthetic features, including visual clarity (M = 4.59 vs. 4.12, p = 0.001), layout organisation (M = 4.41 vs. 4.09, p = 0.039), and design appeal (M = 4.60 vs. 4.32, p = 0.035). Healthcare professionals reported greater perceived barriers, particularly limited technical literacy and poor internet connectivity, while patients rated motivational and practical benefits, autonomy, convenience, and information accuracy significantly higher (all p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe findings highlight the critical importance of participatory co-design approaches that systematically integrate clinical expertise and patient experience in developing digital rehabilitation tools. Although patients and healthcare professionals demonstrated convergence in their evaluation of core functional requirements, their differing perspectives on aesthetic qualities, perceived barriers, and perceived benefits highlight the need to balance user engagement with clinical robustness. These results provide an empirical foundation for designing user-centred and clinically integrated mHealth applications for KOA rehabilitation and contribute to the growing evidence base guiding digital health innovation, implementation, and policy for musculoskeletal rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.